Britain's Ex-PM Blair Warns Against Spread of Radical Islam

[jimnyc]

Always liked Blair, and he's spot on with his stance on radicals.


Western leaders should set aside their differences with Russia over Ukraine to focus on the growing threat of Islamic extremism, former British prime minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday.

In a speech in London, the Middle East envoy said the spread of extremist ideology in that region as well as in Pakistan, Afghanistan and North Africa "represents the biggest threat to global security of the 21st century".

"On this issue, whatever our other differences, we should be prepared to reach out and cooperate with the East, and in particular, Russia and China," Blair said.

His comments come amid a precarious Cold War-style standoff between Moscow and the West over Ukraine.

Blair said there was a shared interest between East and West on the dangers of religious extremism and it should be at the top of the global agenda.

He said many people were "curiously reluctant" to acknowledge the common thread linking Islamist movements around the world, but said "we have to take sides" against a dangerous ideology that was a "perversion" of Islam.

"There is a Titanic struggle going on within the region between those who want the region to embrace the modern world — politically, socially and economically — and those who instead want to create a politics of religious difference and exclusivity. This is the battle," Blair said.

Taking sides meant supporting the principles of religious freedom and open rules-based economies, whether they were held by states or revolutionaries.

In reality, this meant backing the new governments in Egypt and Tunisia and helping the security services in Libya and Yemen to reform, he said.

In Syria, which he called "an unmitigated disaster", Blair said both the prospect of President Bashar Assad staying in power and the opposition taking over seemed like "bad options".

"Repugnant though it may seem, the only way forward is to conclude the best agreement possible even if it means in the interim President Assad stays for a period," he said.

http://www.newsmaxworld.com/GlobalTalk/Britain-Islam-Blair/2014/04/24/id/567446/

[stevecanuck]

Always liked Blair, and he's spot on with his stance on radicals.



http://www.newsmaxworld.com/GlobalTalk/Britain-Islam-Blair/2014/04/24/id/567446/

The only thing he got wrong is that militant Islam is a "perversion" of Islam. The world needs to understand that militant Islam IS Islam.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The only thing he got wrong is that militant Islam is a "perversion" of Islam. The world needs to understand that militant Islam IS Islam. A TRUTH THAT ISLAM SPENDS SO VERY MUCH TIME AND TREASURE KEEPING HIDDEN FRON THE INFIDEL MASSES.
Never more so than here in USA!!
THE EVER SO USEFUL IDIOTS THAT POLICY GARNERS IS INVALUABLE TO ISLAM...

None more so than American politicians and media/journalists.

Its the false face presented to deceive the enemy.. -Tyr

[Drummond]

The only thing he got wrong is that militant Islam is a "perversion" of Islam. The world needs to understand that militant Islam IS Islam.

Yes, exactly.

Blair was very much behind Bush's War on Terror efforts, being totally committed to it. Nobody should doubt the truth of this.

That doesn't change the full truth about Blair's political stance on Islam, though. Blair has always done his best to advance the argument that there is a 'mainstream' Islam which is 'a religion of peace', and that Islamic terrorists do not represent that mainstream ... only themselves.

So Blair worded this as he fully meant to, representing a position he has always taken.

Barely two months after 9/11, Blair gave a hard-hitting speech against terrorism to journalists at a 10 Downing Street press release session. But he used the 'religion of peace' argument THEN to push the bog-standard Leftie line on this.

After all, when all's said and done, Blair will be loyal to a Left wing message. You will always get that from him.

[Drummond]

Yes, exactly.

Blair was very much behind Bush's War on Terror efforts, being totally committed to it. Nobody should doubt the truth of this.

That doesn't change the full truth about Blair's political stance on Islam, though. Blair has always done his best to advance the argument that there is a 'mainstream' Islam which is 'a religion of peace', and that Islamic terrorists do not represent that mainstream ... only themselves.

So Blair worded this as he fully meant to, representing a position he has always taken.

Barely two months after 9/11, Blair gave a hard-hitting speech against terrorism to journalists at a 10 Downing Street press release session. But he used the 'religion of peace' argument THEN to push the bog-standard Leftie line on this.

After all, when all's said and done, Blair will be loyal to a Left wing message. You will always get that from him.

Here's a newspaper article where Blair gives criticism of Islam, its contents being in line with the first link offered. HOWEVER ... here's where Blair qualifies his criticism, keeping it aligned to a Left-wing political correctness message ...


... So I understand the desire to look at this world and explain it by reference to local grievances, economic alienation and of course ‘crazy people’. But are we really going to examine it and find no common thread, nothing that joins these dots, no sense of an ideology driving or at least exacerbating it all?

For those of us who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature. There is not a problem with Muslims in general. Most in Britain will be horrified at Lee Rigby’s murder.

But there is a problem within Islam – from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. And we have to put it on the table and be honest about it.

... this from ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2334560/The-ideology-Lee-Rigbys-murder-profound-dangerous-Why-dont-admit--Tony-Blair-launches-brave-assault-Muslim-extremism-Woolwich-attack.html

If further proof of Blair's true message about Islam is needed, here's an audio recording of a speech Blair gave ... note the statement approx 4 mins 50 seconds into it ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIRet_tMnHc

[jafar00]

Why would anyone listen to someone who is responsible for the death and suffering of millions of innocent people?

[jimnyc]

Why would anyone listen to someone who is responsible for the death and suffering of millions of innocent people?

Maybe because there IS a problem out there with radical Islam, or do you deny that?

[stevecanuck]

Why would anyone listen to someone who is responsible for the death and suffering of millions of innocent people?

You mean Mohamed? Good question. Why would anyone listen to him?

[jafar00]

Maybe because there IS a problem out there with radical Islam, or do you deny that?

No. There is a problem out there with terrorists. There is no such thing as radical Islam because Islam is all about taking the middle path. Like when the Prophet Mohamed (saw) was taken on the night journey (Isra Wal Miraj) he was offered a drink of Water, Milk, or Wine. He chose Milk as representative of taking the middle path. Water would be too austere, wine too extravagant.

These radicals you speak of are so radical, they have left the path of Islam and have become sinners so you can't call them "Islamic" radicals. It's an oxymoron.

[Drummond]

No. There is a problem out there with terrorists. There is no such thing as radical Islam because Islam is all about taking the middle path. Like when the Prophet Mohamed (saw) was taken on the night journey (Isra Wal Miraj) he was offered a drink of Water, Milk, or Wine. He chose Milk as representative of taking the middle path. Water would be too austere, wine too extravagant.

These radicals you speak of are so radical, they have left the path of Islam and have become sinners so you can't call them "Islamic" radicals. It's an oxymoron.

By claiming there's no such thing as radical Islam, Jafar, you're pitting yourself against those apologist types who'd help you sanitise Islam's image !!! Even most of THEM would admit that terrorists follow a 'strict' interpretation of Islam. Looks to me like you're painting yourself into a corner on this one - most of the world will readily disagree.

Besides, to suppose that so MANY terrorists, so MANY groups in so MANY locations .. just 'happen' to have picked Islam, 'coincidentally' as their excuse for terrorist acts, just beggars belief. It's not at all reasonable to believe such a thing. No. The only logical conclusion must be that Islam causes that terrorism, is the inspiration behind it all.

Try this out ..

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=752


Fundamentalist Islam presents itself, on the one hand, as an intensified reaffirmation of faith in a transcendent God. But on the other hand, it is a militant ideology, demanding political action now. In one instance it takes the form of a populist party, asking for ballots. Showing another face, its spokesmen, evoking deep, longstanding historical resentments against the West, call for bullets. The moralists of fundamentalism pour scorn on Western consumer culture as debilitating to Islam, yet its strategists avidly seek to buy the West’s latest technologies in order to strengthen Islam.

Fundamentalist Islam remains an enigma precisely because it has confounded all attempts to divide it into tidy categories. “Revivalist” becomes “extremist” (and vice versa) with such rapidity and frequency that the actual classification of any movement or leader has little predictive power. They will not stay put. This is because fundamentalist Muslims, for all their “diversity,” orbit around one central idea: Islam must have power in this world. It is the true religion—the religion of God—and its truth is manifest in its power. When Muslims believed, they were powerful. Their power has been lost in modern times because true Islam has been abandoned. But if Muslims now return to the original Islam, they can preserve and even restore their power.

That return, to be effective, must be comprehensive and must accept one basic principle: Islam provides the one and only solution to all questions in this world, from public policy to private conduct. It is not merely a religion, in the Western sense of a system of belief in God. It possesses an immutable law, revealed by God, that deals with every aspect of life, and it is an ideology, a complete system of belief about the organization of the state and the world. This law and ideology can only be implemented through the establishment of a truly Islamic state. The empowerment of Islam, which is God’s plan for mankind, is a sacred end and can be pursued by any means necessary. At various times, these have included persuasion, guile, and violence.

'Islam must have power in this world'. Yes, Jafar, and terrorism is a means of getting it, and wielding it.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Apologetics/Koran-Encourage-Fundamentalists-Islam.htm


In many places of the world today we find an increase in the religion of Islam. And what is surprising is that the Moslems who try to resist this progress are accused by their co-religion members of betraying the teaching of the Koran. Does the Holy Book of the Mohammedans justify the Islamic religion? To find out let us give precise quotes on one issue among others - the relationship between the Moslem and non-Moslem world. To get a clear picture, the best way is to refer to the actual text rather than to interpretations which are extraneous to it.

Obligation for the Moslems to undertake the Holy War:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (1), until they pay the Jizya (2) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (S IX 29)

"O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you; and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." (S IX 123)

Threat of punishment to the Moslems who do not take any part in the Holy War:

"O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, then, when ye are asked to go forth in the Cause of Allah ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things." (S IX 38-39)

Promise of enrichment to those who partake in the Holy War:

"He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has Power over all things." (S XXXIII 27)

Threat of punishment for anyone opposing Islam:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." (S V 36)

"If they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them. Wherever ye get them in their case we have provided you with a clear argument against them." (S IV 91)

Fate of Christians:

"They do blaspheme who say: 'Allah is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.' Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help." (S V 75)

"Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book (1) and among the Polytheists, will be in hell-fire, to dwell therein (for aye), they are the worst of creatures." (S XCVIII 6)

Impossibility of lasting peace between Moslems and non-Moslems:

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (For friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guided not a people unjust." (S V 54)

"Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than Believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself: for the final goal is to Allah." (S III 28)

Objection: Is it not to be hoped that the Koran will be read in the future in a more moderate and less fundamentalist light?
Answer: No, this book and the religion which it represents are static and unchangeable, as the following quotations serve to prove:

"So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith: (Establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind: No change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not." (S XXX 30)

"But no change wilt thou find in Allah's way (of dealing): No turning off wilt thou find in Allah's way (of dealing)." (S XXXV 43)

"(This was Our) way with the apostles We sent before thee: thou wilt find no change in Our ways." (S XVII 77)

Conclusion: The Koran is well and truly the authority and the cause of the fundamentalist Islam of today.

[jafar00]

Maybe because there IS a problem out there with radical Islam, or do you deny that?

No. There is a problem with radical people. Islam remains unchanged.


By claiming there's no such thing as radical Islam, Jafar, you're pitting yourself against those apologist types who'd help you sanitise Islam's image !!! Even most of THEM would admit that terrorists follow a 'strict' interpretation of Islam. Looks to me like you're painting yourself into a corner on this one - most of the world will readily disagree.

If they were following a "strict" form of Islam if there is even such a thing, they wouldn't be killing innocent people for political and worldly power would they?!?

[Drummond]

Why would anyone listen to someone who is responsible for the death and suffering of millions of innocent people?

You're referring to Blair ? And ... MILLIONS ?? What are you talking about ??? Are you claiming he has a kill rate comparable to Hitler or Stalin ???

Jafar, the War on Terror has been a reaction to Islamic terrorism. Blair didn't cause 9/11. However, he did help Bush to REACT to it. And in so doing, he did his bit in taking on the savages (and those like them) who choose to be responsible for such acts.

I also find it ridiculous that you're critical of someone who'd help you with your 'Islam is a reliigion of peace' fiction. OK, maybe he'd not take denial quite to your levels ... nonetheless, he did his level best to bend over backwards to sanitise Islam, to help with the politically correct stance you yourself want people to move to accept.

[Drummond]

If they were following a "strict" form of Islam if there is even such a thing, they wouldn't be killing innocent people for political and worldly power would they?!?

Er'm ... that's just what they ARE doing !!!

[Drummond]

Jafar, I know that you choose to claim that the Taliban aren't Islamic. Even despite this, there are plenty of people, and authorities (.. not least themselves !!) who'd say and think otherwise.

See ..

http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/taliban-afghanistan/p10551


The Taliban is a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist group that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when a U.S.-led invasion toppled the regime for providing refuge to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Taliban regrouped across the border in Pakistan, where its central leadership, headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, operates an insurgency and shadow government aimed at undermining the government in Kabul. Since 2010, both the United States and Afghanistan have pursued a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, but with the planned withdrawal of international forces at the end of 2014, many analysts say the prospects for such an agreement are dim.

The Taliban was formed in the early 1990s by a Pashtun faction of mujahideen, Islamic fighters who resisted the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979–89) with the covert backing of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and its Pakistani counterpart, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI). They were joined by other Pashtun tribesmen who, like the mujahideen, studied in Pakistani madrassas (seminaries); taliban is Pashto for "students." Pashtuns comprise a plurality in Afghanistan and are the predominant ethnic group in much of the country's south and east.

NOT Islamic, Jafar ? NOT political ? NOT homicidal ??

And how about Hamas, Jafar ... Jihadist to the hilt, their Charter making it plain that THEY regard THEMSELVES as an Islamic yardstick ... wielding political power over Gaza, and terrorist power against Israel (.. to say nothing about turning kids into walking bombs). AND COMMITTED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AS A CORE OBJECTIVE.

[jafar00]

Er'm ... that's just what they ARE doing !!!

I beg to differ.


By claiming there's no such thing as radical Islam, Jafar, you're pitting yourself against those apologist types who'd help you sanitise Islam's image !!! Even most of THEM would admit that terrorists follow a 'strict' interpretation of Islam. Looks to me like you're painting yourself into a corner on this one - most of the world will readily disagree.

There are radicals and terrorists. I agree. However since they go against all precepts and teachings of Islam they cannot be described as Islamic. It's really quite simple isn't it?
If it doesn't walk like a duck, it 'aint a duck.


Besides, to suppose that so MANY terrorists, so MANY groups in so MANY locations .. just 'happen' to have picked Islam, 'coincidentally' as their excuse for terrorist acts, just beggars belief. It's not at all reasonable to believe such a thing. No. The only logical conclusion must be that Islam causes that terrorism, is the inspiration behind it all.

Try this out ..

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=752



'Islam must have power in this world'. Yes, Jafar, and terrorism is a means of getting it, and wielding it.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Apologetics/Koran-Encourage-Fundamentalists-Islam.htm

Your sources show a complete lack of understanding about Islam. Propaganda at best.


You're referring to Blair ? And ... MILLIONS ?? What are you talking about ??? Are you claiming he has a kill rate comparable to Hitler or Stalin ???

Remember the 45 minutes to deploy chemical weapons threat he levelled at Saddam Hussein as a justification of war? Are you forgetting the deaths as a result and the displacement and suffering of many, many more? Iraq is still suffering to this day because of that folly of a war.


Jafar, I know that you choose to claim that the Taliban aren't Islamic. Even despite this, there are plenty of people, and authorities (.. not least themselves !!) who'd say and think otherwise.

See ..

http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/taliban-afghanistan/p10551

NOT Islamic, Jafar ? NOT political ? NOT homicidal ??[/QUOTE]

Islamic? No.
Political? Yes
Homicidal? Most definitely

Look at these people scrabbling to touch Mullah Omar's cloak believing it will bestow special blessings upon them.
Muslims call this "Shirk". It is worshipping other than God alone.
https://rugsofwar.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/omar_original.jpg


And how about Hamas, Jafar ... Jihadist to the hilt, their Charter making it plain that THEY regard THEMSELVES as an Islamic yardstick ... wielding political power over Gaza, and terrorist power against Israel (.. to say nothing about turning kids into walking bombs). AND COMMITTED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AS A CORE OBJECTIVE.

We are not discussing Hamas here are we?

[Drummond]

I beg to differ.

Ridiculous. There's a ton of proof out there in the big, wide world, defying your view of the world.


There are radicals and terrorists. I agree. However since they go against all precepts and teachings of Islam they cannot be described as Islamic. It's really quite simple isn't it?
If it doesn't walk like a duck, it 'aint a duck.

Oh, I don't know. What about injured ducks ? Psychologically disturbed ducks ?

Then again, what if there's a terrorist out there that walks like a duck ?

Still .. judging by your 'conclusion', I think you'll have to go into complete denial in response to the following:-

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/al-qaedas-syrian-strategy


Al Qaeda is storming across northern Syria. Last month, the al Qaeda affiliate the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) captured the city of al-Bab in the northern province of Aleppo from a rival rebel militia. The capture of the city, one of the largest in the region, gives ISIS control over a key transit point linking Aleppo to its strongholds to the east. And that's just the latest in a long string of ISIS's military successes: After brief clashes with outgunned rebel opponents, ISIS took the towns of Azaz and Jarablus, which straddle Syria's border with Turkey.

To commemorate its victories, the first thing ISIS did in these places was hang its black flag from the top of the highest building. After that, it began to gradually impose its strict interpretation of Islamic law.

ISIS has embarked on al Qaeda's most comprehensive campaign yet to win Arab hearts and minds by providing social services to a war-ravaged society. But though the organization's star is ascendant, its abuses, coupled with an international strategy to limit its influence, could still torpedo its plan to transform northern Syria into an Islamic emirate under its command.

ISIS is thought to count 5,000 to 6,000 fighters within its ranks. That means it's a lot smaller than other rebel groups, such as the hard-line Salafi Syrian Islamic Front, which boasts 15,000 to 20,000 fighters. But ISIS has one important advantage: Many of its members have previously fought in other jihads, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Libya.

Nowhere is ISIS stronger than in the northern province of Raqqa. It controls the governorate's capital, Raqqa city, whose prewar population of approximately 277,300 residents has mushroomed due to an influx of displaced persons from other regions. Meanwhile, the brigades affiliated with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are focused on squabbling among themselves. As a result, no FSA unit is strong enough to challenge the group in Raqqa, making it the largest city al Qaeda has ever controlled in the Islamic world.

ISIS has exploited its grip on the region to supply the provincial capital with the commodities essential to function. It provides most of the wheat for the city's bread factories, trucking the grain in from its silos in the northern parts of the province on the border with Turkey. It also delivers the majority of the city's oil needs, drawing on rebel-controlled wells in eastern Syria.

ISIS is doing far more than keeping the lights on. It runs a court with a mix of judges and religious scholars that draws on a strict interpretation of Islamic law. It adjudicates cases ranging from theft to financial malfeasance. According to Raqqan politicians and residents, in one ruling this summer the court ordered that a house confiscated by a rebel brigade be returned to its owner. It also provides abandoned houses to those whose living quarters were destroyed by regime bombings.

ISIS's Raqqa Outreach Bureau, meanwhile, is trying to educate residents in what it considers the proper teachings of Islam. Raqqan politicians and residents say that the organization distributes pocket Qurans and flash drives with jihadi chants and videos showing the group's military operations. Some of the leaflets that ISIS circulates include: "The Prohibition of Democracy," "The Virtue of Jihad Over Remaining Silent," and "Excommunicating the Alawites" -- the latter a reference to the heterodox minority sect to which President Bashar al-Assad's clan belongs. Nor has ISIS just restricted its attention to adults: It recently opened a children's school in a city where the education system ceased functioning long ago.

Now .. IF what you say is 'true', Jafar, then what are this lot fighting for ??? What's this 'strict interpretation of ISLAMIC LAW referred to ? How do those involved have any interest in circulating Qurans, if what they represent has no bearing on Quran contents ???

Perhaps it's all a fiction. H'mm ? None of the above is happening ? H'mm ? Do tell, Jafar ....


Your sources show a complete lack of understanding about Islam. Propaganda at best.

... a 'lack of understanding' shared by HOW MANY TERRORIST GROUPS, HOW MANY TERRORISTS, IN HOW MANY COUNTRIES ?


Remember the 45 minutes to deploy chemical weapons threat he levelled at Saddam Hussein as a justification of war?

I recall the assertion, though it was never the prime reason for going to war. The prime reason, as we ALL know, was Saddam's refusal to either account for WMD stocks, or to properly prove their dispositions.


Are you forgetting the deaths as a result and the displacement and suffering of many, many more? Iraq is still suffering to this day because of that folly of a war.

... and 'dear old kindly Saddam' was a much-maligned benefactor of his people ??? He did NOT run a despotic regime, his regime was NOT responsible for mass graves, rape rooms, gassing of the Kurds, and unbidden warfare against neighbouring States ?

Saddam did NOT bankroll Hamas ???

'That folly of a war', had neither it, nor something comparably draconian occurred, would've convinced Saddam that he, and any despots like him, were free to defy world opinion as they saw fit. Today, we'd have all sorts of tinpot nutters adding to their own impromptu WMD stockpiles. Hamas, of course, would've been better off (.. and is this why you lament Saddam being deposed ??). And who knows what greater warmongering he'd have indulged in by now. He, or one of his sons ...


Look at these people scrabbling to touch Mullah Omar's cloak believing it will bestow special blessings upon them. Muslims call this "Shirk". It is worshipping other than God alone.

And how do YOU characterise the manic reverence shown, to this day, to a certain one-time kiddie-fiddler by the name of Mohammed ? Why, you can't even draw a less-than-flattering cartoon of Mohammed, or name a teddy bear 'Mohammed' without unhinged mobs baying for the death of the 'transgressor' !!!!

Now, how's that for a 'religion of peace' .. ? H'mm ??


We are not discussing Hamas here are we?

If we're 'not', Jafar, surely that's an oversight ?

And I thought we WERE (amongst other like-minded savages) ..

Tell you what. How about a quick visit to that 'fun' literary work, the Hamas Charter ??

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm


"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

Peaceful stuff, Jafar ? And this is BEFORE we read its INTRODUCTION ....


In the midst of misadventure, from the depth of suffering, from the believing hearts and purified arms; aware of our duty and in response to the decree of Allah, we direct our call(6), we rally together and join each other. We educate in the path of Allah and we make our firm determination prevail so as to take its proper role in life, to overcome all difficulties and to cross all hurdles. Hence our permanent state of preparedness and our readiness to sacrifice our souls and dearest [possessions] in the path of Allah.
So here, we surely have Hamas setting up its pro-Islamic bona fides ... and not exactly in the most peaceful of terms, eh ?


When the thought matured, the seed grew and the plant took root in the land of reality, detached from temporary emotion and unwelcome haste, the Islamic Resistance Movement erupted in order to play its role in the path of its Lord. In so doing, it joined its hands with those of all Jihad fighters for the purpose of liberating Palestine. The souls of its Jihad fighters will encounter those of all Jihad fighters who have sacrificed their lives in the land of Palestine since it was conquered by the Companion of the Prophet, be Allah's prayer and peace upon him, and until this very day. This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah's victory prevails.

Perhaps I'm 'imagining' it, Jafar. But this doesn't come across as particularly 'peaceful'. Jihad fighters ... a call for union with other such Islamic fighters, to join their 'ranks' ... etc.

And, by the way ....


Article One

The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes.

.. but perhaps they were just kidding. Eh, Jafar ??

So, then. YOU tell ME, Jafar, why I SHOULDN'T be discussing Hamas ... perhaps to aid your blanket denials as to the TRUE nature of Islam, and its Jihadist thirst for war and for slaughter ??

Whoops. What a giveaway ......

[jafar00]

Ridiculous. There's a ton of proof out there in the big, wide world, defying your view of the world.



Oh, I don't know. What about injured ducks ? Psychologically disturbed ducks ?

Then again, what if there's a terrorist out there that walks like a duck ?

Still .. judging by your 'conclusion', I think you'll have to go into complete denial in response to the following:-

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/al-qaedas-syrian-strategy


ISIS? Even Al Qaeda disowned them as way too extreme. I don't know what you are trying to prove by presenting terrorist groups as representative of Islam. The fact alone that they can easily gun down a Muslim in cold blood without remorse is enough to condemn them to hell and puts them firmly out of Islam despite what they say and what the press you read says.

If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him. (4:93)

God disagrees with your media and your opinion.

[Drummond]

ISIS? Even Al Qaeda disowned them as way too extreme. I don't know what you are trying to prove by presenting terrorist groups as representative of Islam. The fact alone that they can easily gun down a Muslim in cold blood without remorse is enough to condemn them to hell and puts them firmly out of Islam despite what they say and what the press you read says.

If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him. (4:93)

God disagrees with your media and your opinion.

Oh, so now, you're even suggesting an extent of MODERATION from AL QAEDA ??

But in any case, the article I posted says that ISIS is an Al Qaeda affiliate !! ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS A LIE ?

I quote from the same link as before ...


ISIS has embarked on al Qaeda's most comprehensive campaign yet to win Arab hearts and minds by ......


By providing such services, ISIS seeks to prove that al Qaeda can make positive contributions and build institutions to serve society.


The al Qaeda affiliate continues to persecute anti-Assad activists who don't agree with its hard-line Islamic vision -- the incarceration of Father Paolo Dall'Oglio, an outspoken regime critic, has particularly angered Raqqans, according to residents of the city.

... all lies, is it, Jafar ?

In case you haven't noticed, Muslims can be exceptionally bloodthirsty, and downright cruel and vicious, against other Muslims !! So I fail to see how your claim of 'un-Islamic' actions holds up to scrutiny. Just to cite two of the more extreme examples .. how about honour killings ? Or ... Muslim States, such as Iran, who'll happily decree that Muslims be stoned to death ?

Islamic activity is replete with barbarisms, Jafar. How about the chopping off of hands ? Female circumcision ?

Hardly fits in with a 'peace-loving' mindset ... wouldn't you agree .. ? Barbarism - YES ....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

ISIS? Even Al Qaeda disowned them as way too extreme. I don't know what you are trying to prove by presenting terrorist groups as representative of Islam. The fact alone that they can easily gun down a Muslim in cold blood without remorse is enough to condemn them to hell and puts them firmly out of Islam despite what they say and what the press you read says.

If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him. (4:93)

God disagrees with your media and your opinion.



God disagrees with your media and your opinion

Your problem is reality proves millions of Muslims DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT AND YOU IGNORE THEIR ACTIONS!! Such denial of reality gives you no credibility with sane people, you know we infidels not blinded by bullshat lies coming from a dead child molester.

Now call Britain and complained that I insulted their new masters!! This is America and I'll say my peace come hell or high water!! -Tyr

[jafar00]

Oh, so now, you're even suggesting an extent of MODERATION from AL QAEDA ??

But in any case, the article I posted says that ISIS is an Al Qaeda affiliate !! ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS A LIE ?

I didn't say AQ has moderated. I said the ISIS is too extreme even for AQ.

You really don't keep up with the news do you? Been reading those bigoted, racist hate blogs instead of following real news?


Early Monday morning the leadership of al-Qaeda disowned the Islamic State of Iraq and greater Syria (ISIS), the most effective of its two franchises fighting in Syria, in a maneuver that could alter the trajectory of the fight against President Bashar Assad. In a message posted on jihadi websites the al-Qaeda general command stated that its former affiliate “is not a branch of the al-Qaeda group [and al-Qaeda] does not have an organizational relationship with it and is not the group responsible for their actions.”
http://time.com/3469/why-al-qaeda-kicked-out-its-deadly-syria-franchise/




... all lies, is it, Jafar ?

Uninformed trash journalism more like.


In case you haven't noticed, Muslims can be exceptionally bloodthirsty, and downright cruel and vicious, against other Muslims !! So I fail to see how your claim of 'un-Islamic' actions holds up to scrutiny. Just to cite two of the more extreme examples .. how about honour killings ? Or ... Muslim States, such as Iran, who'll happily decree that Muslims be stoned to death ?

Correction. People can be exceptionally bloodthirsty, and downright cruel and vicious.

My "claim" of unIslamic stands with scripture from the Qur'aan as proof in black and white. You can't argue with it.

#1 Honour killings are not Islamic. Show me how they are?
#2 Iran follows Shia'ism and I am 100% with you in condemning their deviant ways.


Islamic activity is replete with barbarisms, Jafar. How about the chopping off of hands ? Female circumcision ?

Chopping the hands of a thief is like most Sharia based deterrents for crime is a hard conviction to get if the trial is done to full Islamic Law standards. You must admit it is quite the deterrent. In most places of Saudi Arabia, you can leave your house unlocked when you go out for good reason. Thieves are not dealt with lightly. Still there are few places where this punishment is still valid.

FGM (call it like it is) is also a non Islamic custom. Muslims following ancient pre-Islamic customs aren't the only ones who do it. It is an action born of ignorance.


Your problem is reality proves millions of Muslims DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT AND YOU IGNORE THEIR ACTIONS!! Such denial of reality gives you no credibility with sane people, you know we infidels not blinded by bullshat lies coming from a dead child molester.

Now call Britain and complained that I insulted their new masters!! This is America and I'll say my peace come hell or high water!! -Tyr

Millions? What millions?

Yes. Say your "peace" (sic). You make yourself look like an ass.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

. Millions? What millions?

Yes. Say your "peace" (sic). You make yourself look like an ass.

Presented as you pretend your version of Islam is real and tens of thousands murdered yearly do not exist and are of no importance. Which they are of no importance according to the Koran , as infidels are less than human and subject to being slaughtered!

You make yourself look exactly like a liar...
As you preach peace and gentleness of Islam while you support a well known murdering Islamic terrorist group.
I support truth and justice being delivered to murdering vermin!
If that makes me an ass so be it. I can and have lived with being called worse.. even by better people no less .. -Tyr

[Drummond]

I didn't say AQ has moderated. I said the ISIS is too extreme even for AQ.

Precisely. And your comparison said that, within the parameters of that comparison, Al Qaeda can be viewed as comparatively moderate. In which case, my statement stands.


You really don't keep up with the news do you? Been reading those bigoted, racist hate blogs instead of following real news?

Highly sweeping, dismissive, biased commentary. The simple truth is that, YES, the account in my link was outdated by your more recent one. Purely and simply that. YES, I was reliant on old information, which in one detail you have amended. Fair enough, then, and thanks for the update.


Uninformed trash journalism more like.

I asked you, I believe, if the account was telling lies ? THIS is your response. So, you've dodged any conclusion that lies were disseminated. Meaning ... that, in fact, TRUTH was represented in my link (.. at its time of publication).


Correction. People can be exceptionally bloodthirsty, and downright cruel and vicious.

Oh, true, undoubtedly. Though .. I'd argue, and have in the past, that Muslim terrorists take their actions to levels that can only be regarded as SUBhuman. It doesn't exactly 'help' that, particularly attributable to Muslim terrorism, is the phenomenon of EXULTING in the savagery inflicted.


My "claim" of unIslamic stands with scripture from the Qur'aan as proof in black and white. You can't argue with it.

I CAN AND DO ... AND THERE ARE A GREAT MANY THOUSANDS OF MUSLIM TERRORISTS, WORLDWIDE, WHO 'BY PURE COINCIDENCE' DRAW AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF ISLAM TO THE ONE YOU PROFESS IS TRUE.

You still haven't explained how it is that so MANY groups, from so MANY different parts of the world, all somehow manage to defy your 'peaceful' interpretations. This is way too prevalent for you to be credibly dismissive of that.


#1 Honour killings are not Islamic. Show me how they are?

Because MUSLIMS are the chief perpetrators. Again .... would you have me believe this is pure coincidence ???

As Muslims spread out, join other societies, so they spread what, to them, is 'normal' conduct. So it is that there's a correlation between Muslim immigration and increases seen in honour killings.

http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings


To combat the epidemic of honor killings requires understanding what makes these murders unique. They differ from plain and psychopathic homicides, serial killings, crimes of passion, revenge killings, and domestic violence. Their motivation is different and based on codes of morality and behavior that typify some cultures, often reinforced by fundamentalist religious dictates. In 2000, the United Nations estimated that there are 5,000 honor killings every year. That number might be reasonable for Pakistan alone, but worldwide the numbers are much greater. In 2002 and again in 2004, the U.N. brought a resolution to end honor killings and other honor-related crimes. In 2004, at a meeting in The Hague about the rising tide of honor killings in Europe, law enforcement officers from the U.K. announced plans to begin reopening old cases to see if certain murders were, indeed, honor murders. The number of honor killings is routinely underestimated, and most estimates are little more than guesses that vary widely. Definitive or reliable worldwide estimates of honor killing incidence do not exist.

Most honor killings are not classified as such, are rarely prosecuted, or when prosecuted in the Muslim world, result in relatively light sentences. When an honor killing occurs in the West, many people, including the police, still shy away from calling it an honor killing. In the West, both Islamist and feminist groups, including domestic violence activists, continue to insist that honor killings are a form of Western-style domestic violence or femicide (killing of women). They are not.

The study's findings indicate that honor killings accelerated significantly in a 20-year period between 1989 and 2009. This may mean that honor killings are genuinely escalating, perhaps as a function of jihadist extremism and Islamic fundamentalism, or that honor killings are being more accurately reported and prosecuted, especially in the West, but also in the East. The expansion of the Internet may account for wider reporting of these incidents.

Honor killings are a family collaboration. Worldwide, two-thirds of the victims were killed by their families of origin. (See Table 1). Murder by the family of origin was at its highest (72 percent) in the Muslim world and at its lowest in North America (49 percent); European families of origin were involved almost as often as those in the Muslim world, possibly because so many are first- or second-generation immigrants and, therefore, still tightly bound to their native cultures. Alternatively, this might be due to the Islamist radicalization of third or even fourth generations.

But let me guess, Jafar. You'll (a) call all of this the product of a 'hate site', and (b) if challenged, you'll fail to outright state that it's lies, though you'll be generous with diversionary disparagements ..... :rolleyes:


#2 Iran follows Shia'ism and I am 100% with you in condemning their deviant ways.

Factionalism, and convenient factionalism at that. Shias would say they're Islamic, as would so many others.


Chopping the hands of a thief is like most Sharia based deterrents for crime is a hard conviction to get if the trial is done to full Islamic Law standards.

BUT, are you trying to distance Sharia Law from Islamism ??? ONE IS A PRODUCT OF THE OTHER.


You must admit it is quite the deterrent.

Is this admiration of barbarity, Jafar ?


In most places of Saudi Arabia, you can leave your house unlocked when you go out for good reason. Thieves are not dealt with lightly. Still there are few places where this punishment is still valid.

Oh, that's OK, then ! Let's push for worldwide hand-chopping as 'the way forward', shall we, Jafar ????

Then again ... why not just sit back, and watch hardline Islamists push for it in whatever society they join. After all, so many want to Islamise the world ....


FGM (call it like it is) is also a non Islamic custom. Muslims following ancient pre-Islamic customs aren't the only ones who do it. It is an action born of ignorance.

BUT PREVALENT IN ISLAMIC CULTURES NONETHELESS. Indeed, I understand that it's becoming more popular in Indonesia. How come, Jafar ?

As much as you try to squirm your way out of this, Jafar, certain truths are just too obvious to be credibly denied. Such as, that worldwide terrorism is predominantly Islam-based, perpetrated by terrorists ACROSS THE WORLD who all assert they're following Islam, and furthering its aims. Concurrent with this is the evident barbarism of that very terrorism, and its subhuman enjoyment .. AGAIN, particularly discernible as Islamic in origin.

Barbaric customs, which YOU try to distance from Islam, nonetheless come from Muslims. FACT. And I keep offering you links illustrating these observed truths.

Your responses ? Merely variations in style of denial.

It won't wash, Jafar. If you want to be convincing, you need to prove that the material offered is all lies. Without equivocation, without sanitising efforts undertaken just as acts of loyalty to your faith.

Because, as TRUTH, it's CONDEMNATORY TRUTH.

[jafar00]

Precisely. And your comparison said that, within the parameters of that comparison, Al Qaeda can be viewed as comparatively moderate. In which case, my statement stands.

Al Qaeda are extremist and deviant, not at all moderate. That's why it is all the more incredulous that there is another group out there that is more brutal. It's like comparing Adolph Hitler to Mao Zedong. Adolph was a pussy cat compared to Mao.


Oh, true, undoubtedly. Though .. I'd argue, and have in the past, that Muslim terrorists take their actions to levels that can only be regarded as SUBhuman. It doesn't exactly 'help' that, particularly attributable to Muslim terrorism, is the phenomenon of EXULTING in the savagery inflicted.

But, we actually condemn savagery and we have a religious duty to fight against such oppression. Muslims are the complete opposite of what you think.


I CAN AND DO ... AND THERE ARE A GREAT MANY THOUSANDS OF MUSLIM TERRORISTS, WORLDWIDE, WHO 'BY PURE COINCIDENCE' DRAW AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF ISLAM TO THE ONE YOU PROFESS IS TRUE.

You still haven't explained how it is that so MANY groups, from so MANY different parts of the world, all somehow manage to defy your 'peaceful' interpretations. This is way too prevalent for you to be credibly dismissive of that.

If you bring war and instability to regions comprised of many tribes, you have to expect them to descend into chaos and that's exactly what happened. Look at Iraq for example? Before the Gulf Wars, it was a relatively peaceful and prosperous nation. Now it is a complete mess beset by barbarism and daily terrorism. Previous to that, the only terrorist attacks in the country were CIA sponsored.


Because MUSLIMS are the chief perpetrators. Again .... would you have me believe this is pure coincidence ???

As Muslims spread out, join other societies, so they spread what, to them, is 'normal' conduct. So it is that there's a correlation between Muslim immigration and increases seen in honour killings.

http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings



But let me guess, Jafar. You'll (a) call all of this the product of a 'hate site', and (b) if challenged, you'll fail to outright state that it's lies, though you'll be generous with diversionary disparagements ..... :rolleyes:

Sigh....

You don't listen to me so here is a link to speak for me...


One common accusation that Islamophobes like to throw against the religion of Islam is that it allows the act of Honour Killings. What makes this accusation quite interesting is that Islamophobes never actually produce the Islamic texts which call for such an act, rather they base their judgement and argument on what they see around them, basically they read and watch the news and see some Muslims committing this act and they conclude that this must be part of Islam.
http://muslim-responses.com/Honour_Killings/Honour_Killings_


Factionalism, and convenient factionalism at that. Shias would say they're Islamic, as would so many others.

Their practices are so different to Muslims (We don't pray the same and they heap insults upon some of the Prophet Mohamed's (saw) companions) that they cannot be considered Muslims. They follow a different religion despite the similarities that you see. We see them as wayward, distant brothers.


BUT, are you trying to distance Sharia Law from Islamism ??? ONE IS A PRODUCT OF THE OTHER.

There is no such thing as "Islamism". It is a word created by Western Media to describe those who have political aspirations and who also happen to be Muslims.


Is this admiration of barbarity, Jafar ?



Oh, that's OK, then ! Let's push for worldwide hand-chopping as 'the way forward', shall we, Jafar ????

Then again ... why not just sit back, and watch hardline Islamists push for it in whatever society they join. After all, so many want to Islamise the world ....

The nature of Sharia is to make such harsh punishments hard to get to.

I'm paraphrasing here but when the stoning law was revealed (or confirmed from the previous stoning laws in the Torah), a man came to the Prophet Mohamed (saw) demanding to be stoned for adultery. The Prophet (saw) turned away and pretended not to hear him. He did this 3 times before asking him if he was crazy or mistaken? He kept insisting that he was of sound mind, and demanded punishment for committing adultery. This went on for some time with the Prophet (saw) trying to avoid accepting this man's confessions against himself and in the end, sent him off to get what he wanted and he was stoned to death.

Now, you might say, but these young, misguided Al Qaeda/Wahhabi groups seem to dish out harsh punishments without considering for a moment, so they must be Islamic? Sharia is all about fairness, not about brutality. We are supposed to make excuses for our fellow Muslims to ensure no bad feelings exist about them. For example, a brother left my local Mosque recently. He shook my hand and offered salaam but neglected to do the same to the brother sitting next to me. The brother asked me why he didn't get salaam and I said that he probably thought that you were praying or doing Dhikr (remembrance of God) and didn't want to interrupt your worship (he had Tasbih or prayer beads in his hand). So you see I immediately found an excuse for him, rather than condemn his lack of manners. Same with Sharia. A Sharia judge is supposed to exhaust all options to convicting the criminal before passing judgement. Innocent until 100% proven guilty is an Islamic concept.


BUT PREVALENT IN ISLAMIC CULTURES NONETHELESS. Indeed, I understand that it's becoming more popular in Indonesia. How come, Jafar ?

Even the Huff Post says it is not an Islamic thing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/islam-female-genital-mutilation_b_4915939.html

It has been practised way before Islam by Jews and Christians. It is a pre-Islamic tradition. While it may be prevalent in some less developed Islamic cultures, it is also prevalent in other cultures. Egyptian Coptic Christians for example. Why not condemn them too?


As much as you try to squirm your way out of this, Jafar, certain truths are just too obvious to be credibly denied. Such as, that worldwide terrorism is predominantly Islam-based, perpetrated by terrorists ACROSS THE WORLD who all assert they're following Islam, and furthering its aims. Concurrent with this is the evident barbarism of that very terrorism, and its subhuman enjoyment .. AGAIN, particularly discernible as Islamic in origin.

But they aren't (bolded). I provide texts and fatwas against terrorism from time to time in multiple threads about this subject, yet you still believe terrorism to be Islamic because some illiterate person wearing a turban, brandishing a Kalashnikov says so.

I fail to understand your logic.

[Drummond]

Al Qaeda are extremist and deviant, not at all moderate. That's why it is all the more incredulous that there is another group out there that is more brutal. It's like comparing Adolph Hitler to Mao Zedong. Adolph was a pussy cat compared to Mao.

Would any Holocaust survivors agree ? I wonder.


But, we actually condemn savagery and we have a religious duty to fight against such oppression. Muslims are the complete opposite of what you think.

This is excellent news, Jafar. Given what you say, you should therefore welcome a chance to prove what you say ... to respect and comply with your 'religious duty'. Agreed ??

So here's just such an opportunity ....

The opportunity is THIS -- simply reply by showing that your attitude towards Hamas is NOT that of a sympathiser of theirs, but one where you feel combative towards them. Where you unreservedly condemn their savageries. Savageries which see them fire terrorist rockets at Israel. OR STRAP BOMBS TO CHILDREN AND SEND THEM OUT TO KILL THEMSELVES AND OTHERS, TOO.

NO equivocations. NO excuses. JUST PUBLICLY CONDEMN WHAT THEY DO, AND WHAT THEY ARE, WITHOUT RESERVATIONS WHATEVER.

And do us all a favour, Jafar. Don't try to argue that Hamas aren't Islamic. Their Charter makes abundantly clear not only that they revere and act in the service of Islam, but expect other Muslims to see THEM as standard-bearers of the requirements of that religion !!


If you bring war and instability to regions comprised of many tribes, you have to expect them to descend into chaos and that's exactly what happened. Look at Iraq for example? Before the Gulf Wars, it was a relatively peaceful and prosperous nation. Now it is a complete mess beset by barbarism and daily terrorism. Previous to that, the only terrorist attacks in the country were CIA sponsored.

Iraq is a lousy example. Terrorists, in the wake of the 2003 Iraq invasion, moved into Iraq en masse to spread their terrorist savageries to population and service personnel alike. Much of their terrorism is IMPORTED from groups based abroad.


Their practices are so different to Muslims (We don't pray the same and they heap insults upon some of the Prophet Mohamed's (saw) companions) that they cannot be considered Muslims. They follow a different religion despite the similarities that you see. We see them as wayward, distant brothers.

Surely, they'd say just the same about you ? If their practises are different, then they will regard THEIRS as legitimate, and yours as not ?

I repeat: factionalism is involved. It's simply that.

At the end of the day, Muslims are Muslims, and most of the rest of the world will see it that way.


There is no such thing as "Islamism". It is a word created by Western Media to describe those who have political aspirations and who also happen to be Muslims.

Well, I use the word 'Islamism', I'm not part of the Western media, and I don't have either personal political aspirations, or the slightest inclination to ever be a Muslim (not even in nightmares) !!!!!!!!!


The nature of Sharia is to make such harsh punishments hard to get to.

????????????

In Saudi Arabia, you need only steal to get your hand chopped off !!! Quite easy, I'd have thought ....


I'm paraphrasing here but when the stoning law was revealed (or confirmed from the previous stoning laws in the Torah), a man came to the Prophet Mohamed (saw) demanding to be stoned for adultery. The Prophet (saw) turned away and pretended not to hear him. He did this 3 times before asking him if he was crazy or mistaken? He kept insisting that he was of sound mind, and demanded punishment for committing adultery. This went on for some time with the Prophet (saw) trying to avoid accepting this man's confessions against himself and in the end, sent him off to get what he wanted and he was stoned to death.

'Nice' to know that such a 'divine' paedophile as Mohammed was open to persuasion by a mere mortal, eh ? How come Mohammed wasn't minded to prefer guidance from a higher power ?

UNLESS ... the truth is quite different from the way you paint it. And barbarity of this type was more to your religion's founder's liking than you care to admit.


Now, you might say, but these young, misguided Al Qaeda/Wahhabi groups seem to dish out harsh punishments without considering for a moment, so they must be Islamic?

WELL SAID.


Sharia is all about fairness, not about brutality. We are supposed to make excuses for our fellow Muslims to ensure no bad feelings exist about them. For example, a brother left my local Mosque recently. He shook my hand and offered salaam but neglected to do the same to the brother sitting next to me. The brother asked me why he didn't get salaam and I said that he probably thought that you were praying or doing Dhikr (remembrance of God) and didn't want to interrupt your worship (he had Tasbih or prayer beads in his hand). So you see I immediately found an excuse for him, rather than condemn his lack of manners. Same with Sharia. A Sharia judge is supposed to exhaust all options to convicting the criminal before passing judgement. Innocent until 100% proven guilty is an Islamic concept.

UK Sharia courts defy your description. A UK court will happily consign a woman to continue with an abusive marriage, and will overly judge that the woman 'must' be at fault for 'provoking' the abuse in the first place. The BBC's study of those courts found case after case where Sharia Courts acted in defiance of more Western, enlightened and humane norms.

And your example of finding excuses for 'your brother' only needs to be representative of YOUR mindset, not that of your religion. I assure you that, if I tried to, I could find examples online of brutality even between Muslims. Indeed ... doesn't every honour killing committed by a Muslim qualify ??


Even the Huff Post says it is not an Islamic thing

The 'Huff Post', as you call it, is Leftie. And Lefties are, all too often, Muslim apologists.


It has been practised way before Islam by Jews and Christians. It is a pre-Islamic tradition. While it may be prevalent in some less developed Islamic cultures, it is also prevalent in other cultures. Egyptian Coptic Christians for example. Why not condemn them too?

It is MOST prevalent, is MOST entrenched, in MUSLIM cultures. And how can that be, unless (at minimum) condoned by Islam ?


But they aren't (bolded). I provide texts and fatwas against terrorism from time to time in multiple threads about this subject, yet you still believe terrorism to be Islamic because some illiterate person wearing a turban, brandishing a Kalashnikov says so.

'Some illiterate person', you say. Do Muslim Imams qualify as such ? Shall I supply names of such Imams ?

OR, shall we accept what everyone knows (!!!) ... NAMELY, that terrorism BY MUSLIMS is a WORLDWIDE PHENOMENON ?????!!??

[jafar00]

Would any Holocaust survivors agree ? I wonder.

Mao killed more than Hitler and was arguably more brutal. How do you compare two devils though?


This is excellent news, Jafar. Given what you say, you should therefore welcome a chance to prove what you say ... to respect and comply with your 'religious duty'. Agreed ??

So here's just such an opportunity ....

The opportunity is THIS -- simply reply by showing that your attitude towards Hamas is NOT that of a sympathiser of theirs, but one where you feel combative towards them. Where you unreservedly condemn their savageries. Savageries which see them fire terrorist rockets at Israel. OR STRAP BOMBS TO CHILDREN AND SEND THEM OUT TO KILL THEMSELVES AND OTHERS, TOO.

NO equivocations. NO excuses. JUST PUBLICLY CONDEMN WHAT THEY DO, AND WHAT THEY ARE, WITHOUT RESERVATIONS WHATEVER.

And do us all a favour, Jafar. Don't try to argue that Hamas aren't Islamic. Their Charter makes abundantly clear not only that they revere and act in the service of Islam, but expect other Muslims to see THEM as standard-bearers of the requirements of that religion !!

I have already told you how I feel about Hamas many times but you choose to ignore me. And I couldn't care less about their charter. It's theirs, not mine. I support only their struggle against Israeli oppression, not their own shortcomings, Islamic and otherwise. I can only sympathise with people who have been at war and under brutal occupation and held in an open air prison for decades. I'm surprised they haven't descended further into chaos.


Iraq is a lousy example. Terrorists, in the wake of the 2003 Iraq invasion, moved into Iraq en masse to spread their terrorist savageries to population and service personnel alike. Much of their terrorism is IMPORTED from groups based abroad.

You understood what I said. Iraq was free of terrorists except the CIA kind before the invasion. Saddam saw them as a threat and dealt with them as any iron fisted dictator.
The US and it's allies are at fault for the terrorism Iraq suffers today.


Surely, they'd say just the same about you ? If their practises are different, then they will regard THEIRS as legitimate, and yours as not ?

I repeat: factionalism is involved. It's simply that.

At the end of the day, Muslims are Muslims, and most of the rest of the world will see it that way.

Well, the rest of the world doesn't understand the difference. Likewise, I doubt many Arabs could tell you the difference between a Catholic and a Mormon. They both appear to be Christian.


????????????

In Saudi Arabia, you need only steal to get your hand chopped off !!! Quite easy, I'd have thought ....

And they are rightly criticised by the rest of the Muslim world for the way they do things.


'Nice' to know that such a 'divine' paedophile as Mohammed was open to persuasion by a mere mortal, eh ? How come Mohammed wasn't minded to prefer guidance from a higher power ?

UNLESS ... the truth is quite different from the way you paint it. And barbarity of this type was more to your religion's founder's liking than you care to admit.

I don't understand that diatribe and I ignore the insult, but I would like to point out that no Muslim considers Mohamed (saw) to be a divine creature. He was a man, and a Prophet. No more. We do not worship him. We worship God alone.


WELL SAID.

Well they aren't. By rights, they should be sentencing themselves to death. I wish they would.


UK Sharia courts defy your description. A UK court will happily consign a woman to continue with an abusive marriage, and will overly judge that the woman 'must' be at fault for 'provoking' the abuse in the first place. The BBC's study of those courts found case after case where Sharia Courts acted in defiance of more Western, enlightened and humane norms.

From what I know about these so called Sharia courts you have, that they receive no oversight and seemingly anyone can declare themselves a Judge and set one up. Do they even check the credentials of those involved before approving them?


And your example of finding excuses for 'your brother' only needs to be representative of YOUR mindset, not that of your religion. I assure you that, if I tried to, I could find examples online of brutality even between Muslims. Indeed ... doesn't every honour killing committed by a Muslim qualify ??

Again this points out a shortcoming in the societies (nee Pakistan) where such murders are not punished. Murder is murder no matter what you call it, and murder is illegal and a grave sin in Islam.


The 'Huff Post', as you call it, is Leftie. And Lefties are, all too often, Muslim apologists.

Bah, you google it then. I just gave you the first link.


It is MOST prevalent, is MOST entrenched, in MUSLIM cultures. And how can that be, unless (at minimum) condoned by Islam ?

But it is also prevalent in Jewish and Christian culture where tribalism still rules. Please condemn them too. Don't make it just a curse on Muslims.


'Some illiterate person', you say. Do Muslim Imams qualify as such ? Shall I supply names of such Imams ?

OR, shall we accept what everyone knows (!!!) ... NAMELY, that terrorism BY MUSLIMS is a WORLDWIDE PHENOMENON ?????!!??

Ask a terrorist to read from the Qur'aan. Most of their foot soldiers/cannon fodder can't even pray properly. The leaders know they can use this lack of education for a free supply of idiots who will gladly die for them so they can get more political power.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[QUOTE] BUT PREVALENT IN ISLAMIC CULTURES NONETHELESS. Indeed, I understand that it's becoming more popular in Indonesia. How come, Jafar ?

As much as you try to squirm your way out of this, Jafar, certain truths are just too obvious to be credibly denied. Such as, that worldwide terrorism is predominantly Islam-based, perpetrated by terrorists ACROSS THE WORLD who all assert they're following Islam, and furthering its aims. Concurrent with this is the evident barbarism of that very terrorism, and its subhuman enjoyment .. AGAIN, particularly discernible as Islamic in origin.

Barbaric customs, which YOU try to distance from Islam, nonetheless come from Muslims. FACT. And I keep offering you links illustrating these observed truths.

Your responses ? Merely variations in style of denial.

It won't wash, Jafar. If you want to be convincing, you need to prove that the material offered is all lies. Without equivocation, without sanitising efforts undertaken just as acts of loyalty to your faith.

Because, as TRUTH, it's CONDEMNATORY TRUTH.




Jafar preaches no condemnation of Islam is valid even if it is the TRUTH!!
And that is the very essence of his blindness and his clever but denying ways.

Talk about being in too deep, he is in over his head and franticly swimming deeper by the day.

None are so blind as are they that simply refuse to see!--Tyr

[Drummond]

[QUOTE=Drummond;689599]





Jafar preaches no condemnation of Islam is valid even if it is the TRUTH!!
And that is the very essence of his blindness and his clever but denying ways.

Talk about being in too deep, he is in over his head and franticly swimming deeper by the day.

None are so blind as are they that simply refuse to see!--Tyr

:clap::clap::clap::clap:Very well said !!

[Drummond]

I have already told you how I feel about Hamas many times but you choose to ignore me. And I couldn't care less about their charter. It's theirs, not mine. I support only their struggle against Israeli oppression, not their own shortcomings, Islamic and otherwise. I can only sympathise with people who have been at war and under brutal occupation and held in an open air prison for decades. I'm surprised they haven't descended further into chaos.

'ONLY', Jafar ?? ONLY ??

HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGANISATION. THEY EXIST TO DO ALL THE HARM THEY POSSIBLY CAN TO ISRAEL, AND ISRAELIS.

You say you 'support only their struggle against Israeli oppression'. Well ... I don't accept your characterisation of Israel in any case. BUT, rather more to the point, Jafar, in supporting Hamas in ANY CAPACITY WHATEVER, YOU ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISTS, AND TERRORISM.

I remind you of your previous statement on this thread. You stated:


-we actually condemn savagery and we have a religious duty to fight against such oppression.

... EXCEPT in the case of Hamas, obviously. Where Hamas is concerned, regardless of your caveat(s), you DO find a way of lending them support. And, Jafar, I for one do not call their turning children into walking bombs a SHORTCOMING (!!!!) - I instead call it what it is. Namely, SUBHUMAN SAVAGERY.

But regardless of that, you still find a way to lend support to these SAVAGES.

So ... this couldn't be clearer. Your 'religious duty', as YOU say YOU see it to exist, just takes a hike when you prefer it to.

You claim you couldn't care less about their Charter - YET - their Charter performs the task of a yardstick professing Hamas's own assertions as to what should constitute dutiful Islamic conduct. Well, you SHOULD be outraged at their so-called 'hijacking' of the supposedly 'peaceful' nature of Islam.

SO WHY AREN'T YOU ? HOW DOES YOUR DISINTEREST IN THEIR CHARTER MEASURE UP TO YOUR PROFESSED 'STANDARDS' ... ??

You know what, Jafar ? I think I needn't add anything further. You condemn 'savagery' which terrorism brings. You say terrorists are anti-Islamic, and in committing their acts they defy - and 'defile' ? - Islam itself. Yet still, and in contravention of your supposed 'religious duty', you STILL manage a favourable cherrypicking of Hamas as 'people' worthy of support.

You can't have it both ways. Offer the slightest support IN ANY WAY to Hamas, and you commit yourself to supporting terrorism.

[aboutime]

'ONLY', Jafar ?? ONLY ??

HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGANISATION. THEY EXIST TO DO ALL THE HARM THEY POSSIBLY CAN TO ISRAEL, AND ISRAELIS.

You say you 'support only their struggle against Israeli oppression'. Well ... I don't accept your characterisation of Israel in any case. BUT, rather more to the point, Jafar, in supporting Hamas in ANY CAPACITY WHATEVER, YOU ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISTS, AND TERRORISM.

I remind you of your previous statement on this thread. You stated:



... EXCEPT in the case of Hamas, obviously. Where Hamas is concerned, regardless of your caveat(s), you DO find a way of lending them support. And, Jafar, I for one do not call their turning children into walking bombs a SHORTCOMING (!!!!) - I instead call it what it is. Namely, SUBHUMAN SAVAGERY.

But regardless of that, you still find a way to lend support to these SAVAGES.

So ... this couldn't be clearer. Your 'religious duty', as YOU say YOU see it to exist, just takes a hike when you prefer it to.

You claim you couldn't care less about their Charter - YET - their Charter performs the task of a yardstick professing Hamas's own assertions as to what should constitute dutiful Islamic conduct. Well, you SHOULD be outraged at their so-called 'hijacking' of the supposedly 'peaceful' nature of Islam.

SO WHY AREN'T YOU ? HOW DOES YOUR DISINTEREST IN THEIR CHARTER MEASURE UP TO YOUR PROFESSED 'STANDARDS' ... ??

You know what, Jafar ? I think I needn't add anything further. You condemn 'savagery' which terrorism brings. You say terrorists are anti-Islamic, and in committing their acts they defy - and 'defile' ? - Islam itself. Yet still, and in contravention of your supposed 'religious duty', you STILL manage a favourable cherrypicking of Hamas as 'people' worthy of support.

You can't have it both ways. Offer the slightest support IN ANY WAY to Hamas, and you commit yourself to supporting terrorism.

"ONLY" Is like saying how proud you are that Hamas.....

"Killed more Israeli's...but they didn't feel the pain!"

Or like ignorant Americans admitting they voted for Obama...but they meant to vote for "THE OTHER GUY."

[jafar00]

'ONLY', Jafar ?? ONLY ??

HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGANISATION. THEY EXIST TO DO ALL THE HARM THEY POSSIBLY CAN TO ISRAEL, AND ISRAELIS.

You say you 'support only their struggle against Israeli oppression'. Well ... I don't accept your characterisation of Israel in any case. BUT, rather more to the point, Jafar, in supporting Hamas in ANY CAPACITY WHATEVER, YOU ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISTS, AND TERRORISM.

You are guilty of the same by supporting Israeli terrorism.

I can guarantee 100% that if you were in the same position, locked in Gaza while your family is killed and maimed one by one by a foreign invader's bombs, you would fight back and be called a terrorist.

[Gaffer]

You are guilty of the same by supporting Israeli terrorism.

I can guarantee 100% that if you were in the same position, locked in Gaza while your family is killed and maimed one by one by a foreign invader's bombs, you would fight back and be called a terrorist.

Once again. Israel attacks positions in gaza because those positions are launching attacks on Israel. That's not terrorism, that's military action against terrorists. Trying to turn things around is not going to work. You are a supporter of terrorism.

hamas attacks Israel from mosques, school yards, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Israel strikes back and causes innocent casualties (I use that term loosely). hamas then uses those casualties for propaganda that useful idiots like you take as truth and spread.

[Drummond]

Once again. Israel attacks positions in gaza because those positions are launching attacks on Israel. That's not terrorism, that's military action against terrorists. Trying to turn things around is not going to work. You are a supporter of terrorism.

hamas attacks Israel from mosques, school yards, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Israel strikes back and causes innocent casualties (I use that term loosely). hamas then uses those casualties for propaganda that useful idiots like you take as truth and spread.:clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

You are guilty of the same by supporting Israeli terrorism.

I can guarantee 100% that if you were in the same position, locked in Gaza while your family is killed and maimed one by one by a foreign invader's bombs, you would fight back and be called a terrorist.

Presumably, in your answer, you give us something of the truth behind your assertion that you don't care about the Hamas Charter.

Hamas is NOT a 'defensive' organisation. It exists with a central goal of fighting for the destruction of Israel. The Charter makes it plain that Hamas rejects any idea of any form of peaceful settlement with Israel. EVER.

That reflects the mindset of an aggressor. And this is what Hamas is - A TERRORIST AGGRESSOR ORGANISATION.

You try to paint 'Gazans' as the oppressed, but they're nothing of the kind. You don't elect TERRORISTS to govern you and reasonably come out of that as a 'downtrodden innocent'.

Gaffer has said everything else I'd want to say. Other, Jafar, than that when it suits you, you side with terrorists and utterly neglect what you CLAIM is your 'religious duty'.

[jafar00]

Once again. Israel attacks positions in gaza because those positions are launching attacks on Israel. That's not terrorism, that's military action against terrorists. Trying to turn things around is not going to work. You are a supporter of terrorism.

hamas attacks Israel from mosques, school yards, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Israel strikes back and causes innocent casualties (I use that term loosely). hamas then uses those casualties for propaganda that useful idiots like you take as truth and spread.

I'm not going to list the atrocities committed by the Zionists that led up to the prisoners of the Gaza Ghettos launching home made bottle rockets in the general direction of Israel in desperation. I don't believe the forum software is set up to handle that volume of data.

[Gaffer]

I'm not going to list the atrocities committed by the Zionists that led up to the prisoners of the Gaza Ghettos launching home made bottle rockets in the general direction of Israel in desperation. I don't believe the forum software is set up to handle that volume of data.

Just the kind of response I expected from you. Please feel free to list the atrocities. You created the straw man, now run with it.

You act like the rockets fired at Israel are just match rockets that can't hurt anyone. These are ROCKETS, imported from the various arab countries that support hamas. And they are fired from places that will generate lots of casualties when the Israelis retaliate, for propaganda purposes. Refute that.

As for Zionists. The word means those who want to reestablish the country of Israel. And since Israel exists, there are no Zionists, just Israelis. Zionist is used by muslims and libs as a derogatory name for Israelis.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just the kind of response I expected from you. Please feel free to list the atrocities. You created the straw man, now run with it.

You act like the rockets fired at Israel are just match rockets that can't hurt anyone. These are ROCKETS, imported from the various arab countries that support hamas. And they are fired from places that will generate lots of casualties when the Israelis retaliate, for propaganda purposes. Refute that.

As for Zionists. The word means those who want to reestablish the country of Israel. And since Israel exists, there are no Zionists, just Israelis. Zionist is used by muslims and libs as a derogatory name for Israelis.

Jafar would raise hell if one of those socalled "bottle rockets" hit near his home!! You can bet your last dollar on that. We see Jafar try to downplay the atrocities his Muslim brothers commit. And that is not supporting the peace he claims he supports! -Tyr

[NightTrain]

I'm not going to list the atrocities committed by the Zionists that led up to the prisoners of the Gaza Ghettos launching home made bottle rockets in the general direction of Israel in desperation. I don't believe the forum software is set up to handle that volume of data.

It'll handle it.

Let's see it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It'll handle it.

Let's see it.
Don't ever bet on Jafar delivering on it. He has made bold broad statements like that often and each time I asked him to link , source or otherwise back it up be either ignores the request or begs off with some crap like why waste my time.. --Tyr

[jafar00]

Just the kind of response I expected from you. Please feel free to list the atrocities. You created the straw man, now run with it.


Let's just start with Nakba. 15th May 1948 when 700k+ Palestinians were ejected from their homes at gun point and whole towns and villages "wiped from the map" to establish an apartheid "Jewish" homeland shall we?

[Drummond]

Let's just start with Nakba. 15th May 1948 when 700k+ Palestinians were ejected from their homes at gun point and whole towns and villages "wiped from the map" to establish an apartheid "Jewish" homeland shall we?

Does this refer to the time Israel was established as a Nation State, Jafar, sanctioned as such by the United Nations ?

I RATHER THINK IT DOES, JAFAR. You have to go back that far to make your so-called 'case' ?

SO WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING IS THAT YOU RESENT ISRAEL'S VERY EXISTENCE ... A STAND HAMAS WOULD BE PROUD TO SEE YOU TAKE.

Yes, Jafar. Here, we see your true colours. NOT the peace-seeking Muslim ... rather, just another Hamas sympathiser at one with them in resenting Israel's very existence.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/israel_and_the_1948_war.htm


Israel was attacked on the same day it gained its independence – May 14th. The armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq attacked Israel.With such a combined force attacking Israel, few would have given the new country any chance of survival.

So there's the truth, Jafar .. right there. Israel's existence was sanctioned by the United Nations. Yet, in utter defiance of this, neighbouring Arab nations mercilessly attacked Israel from the very moment its existence began.

But, Jafar, NO mention of this from you. How 'strange'. NO acknowledgment of what Israel suffered, any more than you choose to recognise the potential deadliness of each rocket attack originating from Hamas today.

No ... ignore all these truths, in favour of what ... a decades-standing grudge about Nabka, one needing to be seen within the context of a war just started BY Arabs, AGAINST ISRAEL, THE PREVIOUS DAY !!!!! So tell me. What value of life do you put on Israel's population ... compared with the comparative few of Nabka, whose people must've considered themselves to be at war with Israel, this because ISRAEL DARED TO EXIST !!

Why don't you just admit what is obvious ? So very far from being motivated by 'a spirit of peace', which comes 'from the peaceful religion of Islam', the REAL truth here is race hatred, running very deeply indeed, against a legitimate Nation State whose people are seen to be racially different from supposed 'Palestinians'.

There is an alphabet soup of terrorist groups eager to see Israel's destruction. Hamas is one. Al Qaeda is another. Savages, all.

To them, Israel must always suffer attacks. Hamas exists as one group permanently determined to mete out those attacks. And your sympathy for them continues on.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Does this refer to the time Israel was established as a Nation State, Jafar, sanctioned as such by the United Nations ?

I RATHER THINK IT DOES, JAFAR. You have to go back that far to make your so-called 'case' ?

SO WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING IS THAT YOU RESENT ISRAEL'S VERY EXISTENCE ... A STAND HAMAS WOULD BE PROUD TO SEE YOU TAKE.

Yes, Jafar. Here, we see your true colours. NOT the peace-seeking Muslim ... rather, just another Hamas sympathiser at one with them in resenting Israel's very existence.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/israel_and_the_1948_war.htm



So there's the truth, Jafar .. right there. Israel's existence was sanctioned by the United Nations. Yet, in utter defiance of this, neighbouring Arab nations mercilessly attacked Israel from the very moment its existence began.

But, Jafar, NO mention of this from you. How 'strange'. NO acknowledgment of what Israel suffered, any more than you choose to recognise the potential deadliness of each rocket attack originating from Hamas today.

No ... ignore all these truths, in favour of what ... a decades-standing grudge about Nabka, one needing to be seen within the context of a war just started BY Arabs, AGAINST ISRAEL, THE PREVIOUS DAY !!!!! So tell me. What value of life do you put on Israel's population ... compared with the comparative few of Nabka, whose people must've considered themselves to be at war with Israel, this because ISRAEL DARED TO EXIST !!

Why don't you just admit what is obvious ? So very far from being motivated by 'a spirit of peace', which comes 'from the peaceful religion of Islam', the REAL truth here is race hatred, running very deeply indeed, against a legitimate Nation State whose people are seen to be racially different from supposed 'Palestinians'.

There is an alphabet soup of terrorist groups eager to see Israel's destruction. Hamas is one. Al Qaeda is another. Savages, all.

To them, Israel must always suffer attacks. Hamas exists as one group permanently determined to mete out those attacks. And your sympathy for them continues on.

Jafar broke the egg and started making scrambled eggs , no putting it back into the shell now.. :laugh:--Tyr

[NightTrain]

Let's just start with Nakba. 15th May 1948 when 700k+ Palestinians were ejected from their homes at gun point and whole towns and villages "wiped from the map" to establish an apartheid "Jewish" homeland shall we?


I'm sure that Jim is breathing a sigh of relief that his website was able to cope with that monstrous amount of data.

[Drummond]

I've found something more on 'Nabka'. Get a load of THIS ....

http://imeu.net/news/article001237.shtml#2


What is the Nakba?

Nakba means "Catastrophe" in Arabic. It refers to the destruction of Palestinian society in 1948 when approximately 750,000 Palestinians fled or were forced into exile by Israeli troops. Because the Palestinians were not Jewish, their presence and predominant ownership of the land were obstacles to the creation of a Jewish state. Their exodus, or Nakba, was already nearly half-complete by May 1948, when Israel declared its independence and the Arab states entered the fray.

Why does the Nakba matter today?


The Nakba is the source of the still-unresolved Palestinian refugee problem. Today, there are more than 4 million registered Palestinian refugees worldwide. The majority of them still live within 60 miles of the borders of Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip where their original homes are located.

Sixty-three years after the Nakba, Palestinians continue to be denied their freedom and independence. In 1948, 78 percent of Palestine became the state of Israel. Today, the 22 percent that remains continues to be confiscated for the expansion of Israeli settlements and construction of the separation wall. This ongoing denial of Palestinian rights combined with U.S. financial and diplomatic support for Israel fuels anti-American sentiment abroad.

The link says much more than just this, and I freely 'admit' to doing a bit of cherrypicking in quoting what I have. NEVERTHELESS ... what we have, from Jafar's raising of this supposed 'Nabka' issue, is clear evidence of a decades-long grudge against Israel's very right to exist, one going WAY beyond the initial issue of the locality of Nabka and what 'happened' there ... to so-called Palestinians, 'Nabka' has been turned into a catch-all grudge expanded to mammoth proportions, all of it designed to fuel anti-Israel resentment, and much more.


Question: how does Jafar reconcile such a deep-seated hostile grudge, moreover, even a BASELESS grudge, with his assertion that what motivates him is a 'peaceful' religion ??? Wars have literally been fought on the back of Israel's presence !! And Jafar ... just continues to highlight the origin of such enmities.

Am I wrong, Jafar ? If 'yes', how do you answer the above ?

[Gaffer]

I've found something more on 'Nabka'. Get a load of THIS ....

http://imeu.net/news/article001237.shtml#2



The link says much more than just this, and I freely 'admit' to doing a bit of cherrypicking in quoting what I have. NEVERTHELESS ... what we have, from Jafar's raising of this supposed 'Nabka' issue, is clear evidence of a decades-long grudge against Israel's very right to exist, one going WAY beyond the initial issue of the locality of Nabka and what 'happened' there ... to so-called Palestinians, 'Nabka' has been turned into a catch-all grudge expanded to mammoth proportions, all of it designed to fuel anti-Israel resentment, and much more.


Question: how does Jafar reconcile such a deep-seated hostile grudge, moreover, even a BASELESS grudge, with his assertion that what motivates him is a 'peaceful' religion ??? Wars have literally been fought on the back of Israel's presence !! And Jafar ... just continues to highlight the origin of such enmities.

Am I wrong, Jafar ? If 'yes', how do you answer the above ?

In researching nabka I saw this same site. Some things that are left out in all the sites I looked at were that these arabs in this area were warned to get out because the arab armies were coming to attack Israel and they should leave until the Jews were wiped out. Unfortunately for those who chose to leave the arabs didn't win.

From a logical and strategic stand point doesn't it make sense to force out nearly a million potential enemies when the rest of the arab world is massing at your borders to annihilate you?

[Drummond]

In researching nabka I saw this same site. Some things that are left out in all the sites I looked at were that these arabs in this area were warned to get out because the arab armies were coming to attack Israel and they should leave until the Jews were wiped out. Unfortunately for those who chose to leave the arabs didn't win.

From a logical and strategic stand point doesn't it make sense to force out nearly a million potential enemies when the rest of the arab world is massing at your borders to annihilate you?:clap::clap::clap:

[jafar00]

You can try and justify it all you like but it doesn't change the fact that the creation of the Jewish apartheid state of Israel resulted in a great tragedy for the resident Palestinian population who were ejected from their homes and their lands in a great ethnic cleansing operation and resulting in decades of conflict.

It was immensely stupid for the UN to declare a Jewish only homeland in a place that already had a well established native population.